Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Kitesurfing ColumbiaRiver.jpg

Kitesurfer

Reason: I ran into some kite surfers a week or so back whilst walking on a beach. The weather (and hence lighting) wasn't that great, and I'd been out classed by some guy with a 1D and a 400mm F2.8 anyway. I was reminded about this by jjron's pano. Yes, the kite isn't shown in the frame, but if you do show it, you only get a little speck of the kitesurfer, and the associated equipment.
Articles this image appears in: Kitesurfing, Columbia River Gorge, Kitesurfing locations
Creator: Jim Semlor

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously, some version of this should be promoted, but would it look better with the light bit at the bottom cropped, d'ye think? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think the space is there to communicate the height above the water. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Well Support any version anyway. Just not sure it's clear that's the water, thanks to the bokeh. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I also think you could stand to crop the bottom a bit. It's not at all clear that that's water, hence not really worth preserving. But the image itself is gorgeous. Stevage 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did some kitesurfer shots around the same time I did the pano below. Wasn't sure any of them were FP quality, but I did put quite a bit of effort into getting both the kite and surfer in frame which I thought had higher EV - you can do it, but obviously you don't get the same close up detail something like this gives for just one component. I won't offer them as alts as don't want to interject on the nom, but I would like one thing clarified - you talk about taking some shots yourself then nominate this with you as creator, but I don't think this is your photo; I'm guessing that was just a reflex listing cos you're so used to doing self-noms? --jjron (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a matter of habit. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there's room for more than one FP on this subject. One with the kite would show aspects this didn't, and likewise this shows aspects that wouldn't Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a pretty long line between the kite surfer and his kite, so can't really get a detailed picture of the board and harness and fit it all in imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But isn't that Shoemaker's point - that the one showing the kite wouldn't need the same detail on harness etc, because it's showing different things (sorry, didn't mean my comment to stop the 'voting' here). --jjron (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's a dynamic picture and I agree that we could easily have two FPs of this, but the sharpness lets it down (didn't quite nail the focus) --Fir0002 09:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The crop is too tight. I'm also not getting a good indication of the height above the water. Is it possible to work the kite in there somehow? It's kind of crucial to the concept it's illustrating. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Brilliant action shot --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. After mulling on this for a few days. I understand the argument you've given above about not showing the kite, and you're probably right that this subject may be open to two FPs. But the composition of this has been bugging me (since I first looked at it about 2 months ago in the article). For mine there's too much happening at the top of frame and parts of the grip are cutoff, with little reason for it below (given we can't actually see the surface of the water below him it doesn't really convey information about how high he is). So maybe I could let that slide, but the focus is also out - focus is closer to the feet/board than the harness etc that this meant to be illustrating, or even his face. There's just too many issues to me. --jjron (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per jjron. This is a photograph of a popular sport; this wouldn't be difficult to take again with better composition. -- AJ24 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't miss the kite as much as I miss the water. It's not clear enough what's going on here. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]